HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 05 88 PC MinutesApril 5, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 5, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Harry
Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development. Absent: Commissioners,
Stark, Michel and Gould and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 8 and March 22 were
approved as submitted.
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - is proposed on Rt. 20,
and on State Rts. 618, 627, 708, 727, 761, and 795 in the vicinity of
Carter's Bridge, Blenheim and Woodridge. It is comprised of: Tax Map
101, Parcel 55A; Tax Map 102, Parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, and 18;
Tax Map 112, Parcel 15; Tax Map 113, Parcels 1, 1A, 2, 3, 11, and 11A;
Tax Map 114, Parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56, 67, 67B, 69 and 70;
Tax Map 115, Parcel 10; Tax Map 123, Parcels 2, 24, and 59; Tax Map 124,
Parcel 11; and contains 7,969.719 acres.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
district for a ten year period.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Nolan Carter, a participant in the districtp indicated he was available
to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The proposal
was to be heard by the Board on April 20, 1988.
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - is proposed on the eastern slope
of Carter's Mountain on State Rt. 627. It is comprised of Tax Map 91,
Parcel 20, and Tax Map 103, Parcels IA, 1J, 1K, 1L, and 2A, and contains
996.047 acres.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the district
for a ten year period.
The Chairman invited public comment.
A member of the public asked for an explanation of an agricultural/forestal
district. Ms. Scala gave a brief explanation.
April 5, 1988
Page 2
Ms. Tamara Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,was
present to answer questions.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 20., 1988.
Panorama Agricultural Forestal District - is proposed at the end of State
Rts. 661 and 844 near Earlysville. It is comprised of Tax Map 45; Parcel
1, and Tax Map 41, Parcel 23A,.and contains 842.25 acres.
Ms. Scala gave .the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the district
for a ten year period.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Huckle, an adjacent land owner, stated he was interested in
joining the district, if approved.
Mr.Horne noted that applications can be received up until the time of
adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
There being no further public convent, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 20, 1988.
SP-88-17 Cathy Si -coons - Request in accordance with Section 20.3.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
a day care center to be located on 0.16 acres, zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Property, described as Tax Map 61-XI-Block GG, Lot 5, is
located in the F'our'Seasons PLT on the east side of Monterey Drive north
of Lake Forest Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The Chairman noted that the applicant had requested that the application
be withdrawn without prejudice.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that the applicant's request
for withdrawal without"prejudice be accepted. The motion passed
unanimously.
April 5, 1988 Page 3
SP-88-09 Ralph A. Hall - Ralph A. Hall petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a permanent mobile home permit for a single -wide mobile home on
53.7 acres. This mobile home is to be located on property described
as Tax Map 35, Parcel 41A. This parcel is located on the north side of
Rt. 641, 0.5+ from Rt. 20. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
(Mr. Keeler introduced a new planner, Mr. Bill Fritz, to the Commission.)
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained that the "mobile
home is currently located on the property and occupied under a temporary
mobile home permit which was issued administratively on February 14,
1986." The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that 5 years is adequate
time to construct a dwelling and that conversion of temporary permits to
permanent permits should be avoided except under extraordinary
circumstances."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the
applicant's new home was under construction.
It was determined the other two dwellings on the property were "stick
built" and not mobile homes.
Mr. Bowerman expressed confusion as to why the special permit was being
requested for a permanent mobile home.
Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had submitted a letter explaining
that a request for a permanent permit was being made on the advice of
the Zoning Department in order to "eliminate arbitrary deadlines which
do not coincide with our business dealings; to eliminate threats to take
away our permit if we do not meet these deadlines; to eliminate the
constant, special, unannounced visits of inspectors."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that currently the applicant's permit was in compliance
with the Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Berry Davis, current occupant of the mobile home, addressed the
Commission. He confirmed that he was applying for the permanent permit
on the advice of Mr. Evans of the Zoning Department. In response to
Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Davis explained that Mr. Ralph Hall was
his father-in-law who also resides on the property. He explained that
the property belongs to his wife through a Deed of Trust.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Pierre Buscheron, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission
and expressed his opposition to the request. He stated the mobile home is
only 50 feet from the property line and no screening exists on the
applicant's property.
Mr. Robert Bucherou addressed the Commission. He expressed his agreement
with the staff report and with the statements made by his father, Mr.
Pierre Busheron.
April 5, 1988 Page 4
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Ralph Hall.
Mr. Hall addressed the Commission. He stated that the standards of safety
on the property were.more stringent than what was required by the
Commission. He disagreed that the existence of the mobile home would
devalue surrounding property. He expressed concern about unannounced
visits from various inspectors. He felt that such inspectors should :Hake
their presence known and allow the residents of the property to
accompany them on their inspections. He stressed that the permanent
permit was being requested at the advice of the Zoning Department. He
stated that the mobile home would be sold and removed after completion
of the conventional dwelling.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of the procedure for granting
a temporary or permanent special permit for a mobile home administratively.
Mr. Keeler explained these were two separate processes since the require-
ments for a temporary mobile home are not as extensive. He stated: "The
Ordinance specifies for a temporary :mobile home that the applicant and/or
owner of the subject property shall certify as to the intent for locating
the mobile home at the time of application. It also requires Albemarle
County building official approval, minimum frontage setback and side and
rear yard setback shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator...
and provisions for potable water supply and sewage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning administrator and a local office of
the Health Department." He continued "Any permit issued pursuant
to 5.7 shall expire 18 months after date of issuance unless actual
construction shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good
faith...." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report gave conditions
of approval (if the Commission chose to approve the request) which were
in addition to those conditions placed on the temporary permit. Mr.
Keeler also noted that the temporary permit is issued administratively
with no notice to adjoining property owners, while a permanent permit
may be issued administratively after notice to adjoining owners if no
objection is made to the permit.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the applicant acted in good faith when
originally applying for a temporary permit in anticipation of the con-
struction of a permanent dwelling and the County acted in good faith
in granting the permit administratively. He continued: "From what
I've heard tonight, I see nothing here that would make me change
the original approval or take any action on this application except
to recommend denial to the Board and let the existing temporary
mobile home permit stay in place anticipating the construction of
the permanent dwelling."
his. Diehl agreed. She felt the months remaining on the existing
permit along with extensions that could be granted were sufficient.
April 5, 1988
Page 5
Mr. Jenkins asked why the County was giving the applicant deadlines to meet.
Mr. Bowerman explained that there are apparently performance guidelines
for a'temporary mobile home permit which anticipates the construction of
a full-size conventional home. He thought there was a schedule of
events that were to occur at the proposed location for the permanent
home.
Mr. Keeler stated that.a schedule is specified in the Ordinance and he
was not aware of a more detailed schedule which the Zoning Department
might have. He stated the ordinance allows 18 months to get under
construction and thereafter the applicant must proceed in good faith.
He continued: "The Zoning Administrator may revoke any such permit
after 10 days' written notice at any time upon a finding that con-
struction activities have been suspended for an unreasonable time
or in bad faith. In any event, any such permit shall expire three
years from the date of issuance, provided, however, that the Zoning
Administrator may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such
expiration for not more than two successive periods of one year each."
Mr. Keeler explained that a total of 5 years was possible under
a temporary permit provided progress is being made at specified time
periods.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-88-09 for Ralph A. Hall be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Jenkins asked if this would resolve the problem.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "It resolves the problem insofar as the request
that is before us." He felt Mr. Jenkins question about the administration
of a temporary permit was a valid one but not one that the Commission
could address.
Mr. Keeler stated staff would be happy to arrange a meeting between Mr.
Hall, the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Inspections to discuss
the issues.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt it should be determined if this is being
followed up in a routine fashion or if, because of neighboring complaints, it
is being handled differently.
The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 20, 1988.
ZMA-88-04 Republic Homes (North Pantops PRD) - Republic Homes Petitions
the Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-79-27 to permit change in access.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part of) is adjacent and
northeast of Ashcroft PRD in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman excused himself from hearing this petition due to
a possible conflict of interests. He was uncertain as to whether a
conflict did actually exist, but since the County Attorney was not
present to make a determination, he felt it best to excuse himself.)
April 5, 1988
Page 6
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
of the request and stated amendments to the criginal conditions of
approval of ZMA-79-27.
Mr. Keeler added that the applicant was proffering that "the subject
lots will be platted only so long as the projected vehicular traffic
on Franklin Drive remains within the standards established by the
Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements."
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of Bache Lane.
Mr. Keeler responded: "Bathe Lane was originally approved to serve
9 lots (parcel 28) and that was under the prior Zoning Ordinance.
When the new ordinance was adopted that portion of the development
was not pursued and currently that property can only be divided
into rive lots. The proposal is to continue Bache Lane on through
into the PRD in this fashion." He confirmed that the land can
be acquired to allow this.
In response to. Mr. Wilkerson's question, 'sir. Keeler stated that Lot
28 "is susceptible to a total of five lots --I'm not sure there are
that many building sites on it."
Ms. Diehl, acting in 'Mr. Bowerman's absence, invited public comment.
Ms. Marjorie Brown Ragland addressed the Commission. She expressed
concern about the impact on flooding which the construction of
a road might cause. (Ms. Ragland was the owner of 8 acres on Rt. 769.)
She indicated the road was.subject to flooding. Ms. Diehl
responded: "Z don't think that is in the area that we are talking
about; I think that is beyond the confines of the area that has
already been approved for subdivision." Ms.. Diehl further explained
that the road that might possibly be extended was to the east.
about
Mr. Keeler thought Ms. Ragland was concerned/actual runoff from the
subdivision. He stated, "The change in the road alignment, I do not
think would affect .you. ... A portion of this property is within
the urban stormwater detention area. (He pointed out an area that
would drain in Ms. Ragland's direction.) I don't know how much of
the property is under the stormwater control; it would all be under
control of the Soil Erosion Ordinance."
Ms. Diehl expressed understanding of Ms. Ragland's concern, but stated
the problem does not lie with the current issue, i.e, the road connection,
but rather what may arise as the subdivision develops. She stated
that the situation will. be monitored and conditions of the subdivision
will require monitoring by the County. She advised Ms. Ragland to
notify the County if problems should arise.
Mr. Claude Reed, a resident of Franklin, addressed the Commission.
He asked if another access road would be built through Ashcroft or
if the only one proposed was the one through Franklin. Mr. Keeler
responded: "The access that would.be open for use by the subdivision
would be through Franklin. We would be recommending, at the time of
April 5, 1988
Page 7
subdivision approval, that there be an emergency connection into
Ashcroft in the event (these other roads) should be blocked, for
emergency purposes, not for regular usage."
Mr. Keeler confirmed 28 lots have been approved, subject to the
conditions listed and Health Department approval.
Ms. Diehl added that 28 lots were conceivable, but that all 28 might
not be achievable.
In response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Keeler explained that a large plan of
the subdivision could be seen at the Planning Department offices and
the matter would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on April 20, 1988.
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the Commission would also be reviewing a
subdivision plat at some future time, and the public would be allowed
to comment at that time also.
Ms. Diehl clarified that the subdivision has been approved for 28
homes, but has not been plati2d.
It was determined a date had not been set for review of the subdivision
plat. Mr. Horne pointed out that adjoining property owners would be
notified when, or if, the actual plat is to come before the Commission.
Ms. Patty Kabash, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
She expressed concern about traffic and about a sight distance problem
at the point where the road meets Rt. 20. She asked if a traffic light
was planned. She asked if an emergency access to Ashcroft might at some
time in the future become a public road.
At this point, Ms. Diehl invited comment from the applicant.
Mr. Bob Hauser, representing Republic Homes, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the road needed to be realigned because Ashcroft has
not developed to the point where access to Lego Drive is possible. He
felt there was a demand for this type of subdivision in this location.
He stated the development envisioned was along the lines of Wintergreen.
He felt the plan would not create a lot of runoff, and certainly not
more than was anticipated with the original approval.
Regarding Ms. Kabash's concerns about the entrance location on Rt. 20,
Ms. Diehl explained that at present there were no comments from the
Highway Department on this issue. Mr. Keeler added that, unless VDOT
standards have changed, he would be surprised if any improvements
were required to that intersection. Ms. Diehl pointed out that that
would be addressed at the time of subdivision review. Ms. Diehl also
stated that emergency accesses are often just left as grassed areas,
or possibly chained.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Jenkins expressed some interest in the future of a possible second
access.
April 5, 1988.Page 8
Mr. Keeler explained: "The Board of Supervisors vacates rights -of -way
all the time. Our Subdivision Ordinance actually requires you to provide
for continuation of roads so you will have a logical road network, so,
for example, the school buses can go through Franklin and then into
Ashcroft without having to loop back around, so there will be a residential
street pattern. That's been avoided in the County. we have very few
subdivisions that connect to other subdivisions. ... On the one hand our
ordinance basically requires it, but on the other hand, the Commission
and the Board have not required it."
Mr. Horne added: "You do have control over it. If it's not platted in
the public street right-of-way now, which we're not recommending that it
be, when and if they want to come back in and re -plat that and establish
a public right-of-way through there, that would have to obtain County
approval, and. if it was not a good idea at that time, we would not approve
it."
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-88-4 for Republic Homes be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following amendments to
conditions of approval of ZMA-79-27 and subject to the applicant's
proffer as stated in a letter of April 5, 1988, signed by Robert X.
Hauser:
I. Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellings subject to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses
shall comply with the Application Plan. In the final site plan and
subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion
to the number of lots approved;
2. No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within
any area until the final Stormvater Detention and drainage plans
for subject .subdrainage basin have been approved for concurrent
construction;
3. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as
necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer;
4. All lots shall be served by public water.
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans including
revised plans for Bache Lane;
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements.
7. Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: front - 25 feet; side -
15 feet; rear -- 20 feet. A separation of 100 feet or more between
dwellings shall be maintained, for fire protection, provided that such
distance may be reduced by the Fire Official in accordance with Section
4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (Yard regulations shall not be reduced.).
Fire Official approval of fire prevention system. Such system shall
be provided prior to any certificate of occupancy;
8. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations
April 5, 1988
Page 9
on each lot. The Health Department shall either supervise or test
each lot utilizing soil tests by a qualified soil scientist and undertake
or supervise percolation tests as they may be required. Such tests
must demonstrate that two septic drainfields can be located on each
lot without encroaching on any slope exceeding 25%. Septic tanks
and/or drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25% or greater.
Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined
with a building lot and/or added to the common open space.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.
ZMA-88-3 United Land Corporation
and
SP-88-20 United Land Corporation - United Land Corporation, under ZMA-88-3,
petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 34.3 acres from RA, Rural Areas
as follows: 6.2 acres to C-1, Commercial (PROFFER) and 28..1 acres to
LI, Light Industrial. SP-88-20 proposes location of two motor vehicle
rental businesses on. the 6.2 proposed to be rezoned to C-1 (Section 22.2.2.8).
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17, is located on the north
side of Rt. 649 about 1/2 mile west of U.S. Rt. 29N in the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Horne and Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. staff recommended approval
of ZMA-88-03 and acceptance of the applicant's proffer to distinguish
this action from endorsement of general commercialization of recommended
industrial areas. Staff also recommended approval of SP-88-20 subject
to conditions.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant's proffer which limits the use
of the C-1 property to car rental agencies only.
Mr. Keeler added the following comment: "The way the staff report is
written, it almost indicates that if you approve this you are obligated
to amend the Comprehensive Plan. We don't want to get you into any
kind of promissory position in doing that, so if you set that issue
aside, the C-1 zoning is not consistent with the Plan, with the literal
review of the Land Use Plan. It is to provide for uses that are directly
supportive of the airport and in that regard the issue is whether or
not that overrides the question of consistency with the literal review
of the Land Use Map."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that auto rentals are not allowed in the LI zone.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendell Wood who offered to answer
questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
.gaoo
April 5, 1988
Page 10
-Mr. Bowerman stated that he had no problem with the proposal as outlined
in the staff report. He felt it was consistent with his idea of the
Comprehensive Plan, i.e. that near an airport car rental.agencies
should, be allowed. He felt the staff report had presented a justification
"to do that without opening us to wholesale changes in the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations for commercial in place of industrial." He
continued: "I think this is somewhat unique, not to say that we couldn't
have another application for another car. rental .agency adjacent to it
or someplace on 606 or something like that. I thought we discussed
something in the Camp Plan (worksessions) about airport -developed property,
some property the airport owned that they could do for this use."
Mr. Horne responded: Ve113 actually, it was probably right about on
these parcels. In the staff original recommendation for the proposed
land use map, we had.showed a regional service area along Airport
Road. It wasn't tied to parcels, but it was sort of in this area with
the idea that in the long run it would be appropriate to mix in some
commercial uses as support services to the airport. However,'I don't
think I would really relate what our thinking at that time was to
what our thinking is with this rezoning. You decided not to do that
and that's a decision thatwe're accepting. That's not the kind of
use we see here. This use, truly in our mind, is directly related
to the service of the airport, not indirectly. There are patrons
of the airport who.,rant to get on planes and who want to rent cars
as opposed to they may need to eat in a restaurant, they may need to
stay in a hotel, they may need to do a number of other things while in
the area. They can do those other places. They don't need to do that
right near or at the airport. So, I think our position is clear in the
staff report,.but it's important to me that you feel comfortable in
not setting a precedent with this rezoning. It is a very restrictive
proffer, as you can see --one use and one use only --because we don't
support in any way going into a large-scale industrial area and
inserting commercial uses. .They should be separated except where you
can feel that there is a firm justification for allowing limited
intrusion in a particular case."
Mr. Bowerman asked that the following portions of the staff report, addressing
the justification for this rezoning, be included in these ainutes:
"In this particular case, staff offers the following comments for the
proposed C-1 zoning:
1. Auto rental uses are directly related to and supportive of the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. Automobile rentals are a direct
service to airport patrons and, in fact, the agencies have in the past
operated at the airport itself. The staff however, anticipates the
need for the type of acreage to be quite limited and would distinguish
between these direct services and their indirectly related commercial
enterprises. (The Planning Commission in Comprehensive
Plan deliberations may wish to consider designation of an area
for airport related commercial uses);
2. The applicant has specifically limited use of the C-1 area to auto
rental agencies only."
-9.2 `-7
April 5, 1988
Page 11
Ms. Diehl stated that given the background information in the staff
report, she had no problem with the proposal.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed and moved that ZMA-88-03 for United Land Corporation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the applicant's proffer letter of March 11, 1988, signed by Wendell W.
Wood and also that SP-88-20 for United Land Corporation be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Tax Map 32, Parcel 17 consisting of 34.3 acres to be developed
employing internal road system, with all access restricted to internal
road;
2. The Planning Commission shall require substantial screening of
auto storage areas from Route 649 at time of site plan approval.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Both proposals were to be heard by the Board on May 4, 1988.
Collector Roadways in Southern Urban Areas - Discussion of possible
alignments and costs of collector roadways in the Southern Urban Area.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report and led a discussion of the two most
viable alternatives to providing east -west connector roadways in the Southern
Urban Area of the County. The two roads discussed were: (1) The
Biscuit Run Connector (Avon Street to Fifth Street); and (2) The
Southern Collector Road (Avon Street to Rt. 20 South). Two consultant
reports, including maps, were included, the purpose of which was to
find actual feasible alignments for consideration by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The staff report summarized
the results of the studies and prepared a chart of the advantages and
disadvantages of each proposed roadway. Cost estimates were also
included in the consultant. reports.
The staff report recommended "that the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors endorse the construction of the Southern Collector Road
from Avon Street to Route 20 along the recommended alignment A-2.
The construction costs of this roadway are much more manageable and would
provide most of the same immediate benefits of the Biscuit Run Collector."
The report also stated:
"Another decision that needs to be made by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors is the status of the Biscuit Run Connector
in the Comprehensive Plan. (... ) ... if the Board has no intention of
ever building the Biscuit Run Connector along the proposed alignment,
it would only be fair to all persons involved to remove it from the
Comprehensive Plan."
,?30
April 5, 1988
Page 12
After some discussion, fir. Wilkerson moved that the Commission endorse
alignment A-2, (Southern Collector Road from Avon Street to Route 20).
Xs. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Regarding the removal of the Biscuit Run Collector from the Comprehensive
Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission that this issue be discussed
further before making a recommendation. The Commission was reluctant
to recommend the deletion of the Biscuit -Run Connector without further
study because VDOT has adamantly refused to consider an interchange at
Avon Street and there appears to be no other way to get traffic off
Avon Street and into the City. It was determined this issue would be
discussed further at the April 12 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Bowerman read a letter from Mr. Richard Could in which :fir. Gould
resigned his position as a member of the Planning Commission representing
the Rivanna Xagisterial District, effective March 31, 1988.
zh. Bowerman stated that election of a new vice chairman would take
place at the next Commission meeting at which all six remaining members
were present.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
VvV C r �
J hn Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by Deloris Sessoms